New CCJ Reveals Carrie-Anne Ridsdale Identity Previously Denied

A newly found County Court Judgment (CCJ), made in January 2026, cuts across her repeated public denials about the name behind Jayne’s Baby Bank. It follows our earlier report on the unpaid 2024 judgment registered against “Ceri-Ann Ridsdale” trading as Jayne’s Baby Bank, which you can read separately.

The new record is different for one reason. It is not registered under a variant such as “Ceri-Ann Ridsdale”. It is registered under the name MISS CARRIE-ANNE RIDSDALE, the name she has repeatedly disputed, played down or called wrong.

What the judgment shows

The Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines, searched through TrustOnline, shows this unsatisfied (unpaid) judgment:

• Name on the record: MISS CARRIE-ANNE RIDSDALE
• Address on the record: 7 Meadow Road, Pontllanfraith, Blackwood, NP12 2AG
• Court: Civil National Business Centre
• Case number: M3DP9X7A
• Amount: £277
• Date of judgment: 27 January 2026
• Status: unsatisfied when we checked in May 2026

The same register holds the earlier £7,141 judgment (case 521MC287, 23 May 2024) against CERI-ANN RIDSDALE T/AS JAYNE’S BABY BANK, at the same address.

Why it matters

What matters about this judgment is not the amount but the name.

For a long time the name Carrie-Anne Ridsdale has been challenged, denied or treated as if it had nothing to do with the woman who presents herself as “Jayne Price”. This judgment puts the exact name MISS CARRIE-ANNE RIDSDALE on an official court register, at the same address as the earlier judgment: 7 Meadow Road, which Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. also gave as its registered office when it was formed in November 2025.

What she said

On 1 February 2026, five days after this judgment was made, she said in a live video about the earlier one:

And where’s the one where they said, I’ve got a CCJ, but it’s not even my name. It’s not even the name that’s usually used in conjunction with me.

Her video, 1 February 2026 (transcript)

In another video the same day, about a business rates summons, she said: “it’s not my name on the court document. It’s our company, but it’s not our name”, and “there is no legal documents, anything to do with our CIC company or anything, ever, ever” (transcript).

The January 2026 judgment weakens that position. It uses the Carrie-Anne Ridsdale name directly, it is at the same address, and it is on the same official register. The pattern is no longer a single spelling such as “Ceri-Ann”: the exact name Carrie-Anne Ridsdale is now on the court register itself.

The names on the record

The judgment adds to a pattern of names, each tied to a record (set out in our earlier report):

• Jayne Price: the name she trades and fundraises under, including on the JustGiving page for her rescue (“Jayne PRICE”).
• Jayne-Anne Price: on a driving licence she posted herself.
• Carrie A Ridsdale: on the electoral roll, 2013 to 2016.
• Carrie Ann…: on court papers about a Torfaen business rates summons, shown in her own video in August 2025.
• Jayne-Anne Carrie-Anne Ridsdale: on the lease for the Pontypool shop, January 2023.
• Ceri-Ann Ridsdale: on the £7,141 judgment and on the Aberbargoed lease.
• Carrie-Anne Ridsdale: on this £277 judgment.

Identity and public trust

People can lawfully use preferred names, nicknames, maiden or married names, or rebrand in public. That alone is not wrongdoing.

But where public donations, a CIC, baby bank fundraising and community trust are involved, a consistent identity becomes a fair public-interest question. Donors, regulators, suppliers, councils, landlords and the public are entitled to know:

• who debts are registered against;
• which legal identity runs the fundraising;
• whether several names refer to the same person.

This is not “one typo” or “one spelling difference”. The records show several formal names meeting again and again across enforcement, fundraising, trading, tenancy and the courts.

What happened next

• 5 October 2026: we published the Aberbargoed lease, signed as a deed by “CERI-ANN RIDSDALE”, the same spelling as the £7,141 judgment she said was not her name (She said the CCJ wasn’t her name: here’s her signature).
• October 2026: the £7,141 judgment was still unpaid.

Sources